Tag Archives: Obamacare

THE DANGERS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, by JERRY O’NEIL, STATE REPRESENTATIVE & FORMER STATE SENATOR, MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DISTRICT 3, COLUMBIA FALLS & KALISPELL, MONTANA

AGAINST AN AMENDMENTS CONVENTION Montana State Representative Jerry O’Neil of Columbia Falls, Wednesday, 26 February 2014—4:05 PM (1 hour ago) Central Standard Time

I am against an “Amendments Convention” as called for by Mark Levin, Rob Natelson and Tim Baldwin. I do not take this position lightly.

Under the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, our President and Congress have taken over our banking, unions, businesses, communications, and education. They have created a secret police/national police (TSA, ICE, Border Patrol, etc), and instituted ObamaCare by which government will control all our health care. They have failed to turn over about 25% of the land area of Montana as was agreed to when we became a state. 

I agree freedom could be advanced with the proper amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As a state legislator, I have attempted several times to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to place some control over, and limits on, the federal government. 

In 2003 I got a bill to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment out of the Senate Judiciary Committee – but it was defeated on the Senate Floor. In the 2005 legislative session I attempted to accomplish close to the same thing by having the Montana legislative caucuses nominate our U.S. Senate candidates to be on the general election ballot. 

In the 2013 legislative session, with Senator Verdell Jackson’s brilliantly executed motion for reconsideration in the Senate, I got House Joint Resolution 3 passed. This is a request for a constitutional amendment to put some sideboards on the “Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. I presently need some help to get other states to advance this concept. 

Then why am I against an Amendments Convention? Because I don’t believe the majority of the citizens of the United States currently understand or appreciate Freedom. It is not adequately taught in our schools or churches. Even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church seems to be ignorant of the fact that capitalism has lifted far more out of poverty than socialism and communism ever have. 

Vaclav Klaus, the former Premier of the Czech Republic stated: 

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” 

While many of us in Montana have known what is happening for many years, we have not hollered loud enough to wake up our neighbors. We have not always supported the candidates who understood the basics of freedom when they were running for our school boards, city councils, county commissioners, state legislatures, judges, congress and president. We have not sent enough letters to the editor speaking up for freedom. 

We have been complacent, attending churches where the preachers would not take a stand on Biblical principals of freedom because they were afraid they would loose their parishioners’ monetary support and their federal tax exemption. Many of these churches would not even mention it to their congregations when they knew a political candidate was in favor of government supported abortions. 

For years we have watched the Supreme Court put forth immoral, anti freedom and statist decisions , including the Dred Scott decision, the Slaughter House Cases, Wickard v. Filburn, Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, Gonzales v. Raich, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas. We have allowed the bigs, such as AIG, General Electric, Bank of America and Monsanto, to choose the likes of McCain and Romney to be our presidential candidates. (Will they choose Chris Christie for us this coming election?) 
We have known for years deficit financing as advocated by Keynesian economists constitutes theft from our seniors’ retirement accounts and supports the big banks. Yet the public supported the Federal Reserve Act in order to “furnish an elastic currency.” 
We have supported our universities where the professors of economics are beholden to the Federal Reserve System as consultants, board members, or for having published their masters or doctors thesis in one of the fed’s magazines. 

We have seen the evidence of how the “bigs”, including the pharmaceuticals, banking industry, insurance, unions and other protected industries and professions own the political establishment, but we have not supported the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment to lessen the bigs’ power and return some semblance of states’ rights. 

We have seen socialism advance but have not challenged the expansion of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, federal intervention in education, food stamps, ObamaCare, and a whole plethora of other government programs. 

We have seen the installation of the Real ID act, the Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act, but, because we were afraid, we kept silent. We accept airport screening and government eavesdropping. We take off our shoes at the airports like good comrades. 

The people of Montana believe government can pass laws to make them more affluent. 
In 2006 we 72.7% of the voters passed Initiative I-151 to increase the minimum wage. By so doing we devalued the dollar and deprived many Indian children on our reservations, where unemployment is over 50%, the opportunity to get their first job. The minimum wage effect on those whom age out of our foster care system is similarly devastating. At the age of 26, 46.8 percent of participants responding to one study were unemployed. We need to make it easier to hire the needy, not remove the bottom rung of their ladder to prosperity. 

In our last Montana election we passed initiative I-166 by a 3 to 1 majority. The fuzzy catch phrase with which it was sold to the public was “Corporations are not People.” That was what appeared on the ballot. The rest of I-166, which did not appear on the ballot, called for a repeal of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution! The intent was to abolish the freedoms of speech, press and association that Congress is presently not allowed to interfere with. If I-166 is successful, these freedoms likely will be replaced with statutory rules as Congress sees fit. 

While the public remains asleep to the concept of freedom it is too dangerous to make it easier to change the Constitution. 
Our Constitution contains negative rights, stating what government can’t do to us or take away from us. We are too likely to throw away these “negative rights” contained in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and replace them with “positive rights,” such as a right to: free health care, free child care, living wages, and government controlled food prices. 

Maybe the chance to amend positive rights into our Constitution is the reason George Soros, Common Cause, the Move to Amend coalition and hundreds of other progressive organizations are also pushing for an Article V amendments convention. 

What are we going to do to save freedom for our progeny? When are we going to stop bowing to the socialists, fascists and communists? When are we going to demand our schools and churches teach and advocate for freedom? When are we going to join freedom fighters holding up signs along the highways criticizing the big government statists and asking for freedom? When are we going to stand up in church and speak up for political candidates who will fight for the Biblical truths and freedoms that our founding fathers fought and died for? 

Until the majority of the public understands and believes in freedom an Amendments Convention is more likely to enslave us than to free us. Therefore I am against having one at this time.

EU arguments about who should profit from tax shelters? Little Countries Like Austria or Big Countries Like Britain? The “Progressive” income tax has built in all the most awful incentives known to man—it is a universal disaster…

I invite the opinion of my former colleagues still active in history and comparative socio-cultural evolution/political anthropology to tell me whether, in their well-researched opinion, there has ever been a system of taxation as counterproductive and mind-numbingly stupid as the graduated “progressive” income tax.  The article below shows the international scale of the dishonesty which the tax begets.  What do we expect from a tax which penalizes a little success a little bit and a lot of success a LOT?  The income tax has but one incentive built into it: either make no money at all or lie about it if you do.  Does the fact that I am in the former category rather than the latter make me more “virtuous” because I don’t have to lie about anything?  Or does it mean that I have failed to achieve that level of comparative economic success which apparently the elites hate and despise because the moment you achieve it, they do what they can to take it away from you….

But there are other built in perversities in the income tax: I was conversing today in the Garden District in New Orleans with a hotel-owner (one of the most famous brand names of any hotelier in the whole world, history of the hotel business in fact) about the “historic preservation tax credit”, about which I knew very little. But after listening to his description of recent litigation in federal court (arising out of the attempts to preserve and pass on the “Map of the Town that Made the Monopoly Board,” namely Atlantic City, New Jersey, http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/111832p.pdfAtlantic City Boardwalk “Historic Boardwalk Hall”) about who was reaping the benefits from this tax credit, I was able to draw  comparisons to the “clean air emissions tax credit” (which I studied because of my interest in environmental law rather than my terror of the income tax—struggling some twenty some odd years ago—and how odd they’ve been—to learn the arcane logic of this tax law credit swap business from the most unbelievably disorganized and incomprehensible professor I had at the University of Chicago Law School—Professor, now one of Obama’s top “Czars,” Cass Sunstein). In essence, the 1990s revisions to the Clean Air Act set up an exchange system dictating how tax credits can be swapped or sold at a discount (like any obligation of indebtedness, right?) so that those who have succeeded the most in fulfilling the tax credit’s stated purpose (contributing to historical preservation or emitting less toxic fumes from a single point source, e.g. factory complex) can make more money by selling off and trading the benefits of THEIR efficiency and success to those who are LESS successful, making the rich richer (as always) and (somewhat counterintuitively) lessening the burden or penalties on those who are either abject failures or in the “the middling-to-less successful” categories in the middle.

The income tax is simply a tool of arbitrary and capricious governmental control—an instrument of terror and lies.  If anyone knows a worse system of taxation—I would love to hear about it.  And don’t tell me “Aztec Tribute involving Human Sacrifice”—because the incentives built in to participate in that system were HUGE—honor and glory to one’s name and family, life transcending death either through apotheosis or something near to it.  There is no honor or glory for anyone in paying the income tax—if you show a high income and pay high taxes, the socialists want you to pay more and the country club set snicker at you for poor tax planning.  If you don’t pay when you owe income taxes, you’re going to be prosecuted a criminal of course, unless you ARE one of the elite who hire the most elite tax accountants who can turn the super-byzantine tax code on its head and upside down to your benefit…. And there’s no real glory in either of those outcomes either.  The income tax is the single worst aspect of the Keynsian Socialist-Corporate State, because it is the most universal—or, at least, it was the most universal until OBAMACARE…..

British offshore banking under fire in EU tax haven battle

TelegraphBy Bruno Waterfield | Telegraph 

Austria has accused Britain of being a haven for money laundering and tax evasion as the Alpine nation comes under European Union and German pressure to axe its banking secrecy laws.

Europe’s finance ministers meeting in Dublin today are pushing Austria hard to follow Luxembourg’s example in agreeing to reveal information on European banking depositors to EU tax authorities.

Maria Fekter, the Austrian finance minister, has vowed to “fight like a lion” against the demands and has refused to change her country’s laws until Britain ends tax haven and banking secrecy laws in offshore financial centres, such as the Channel Islands.

“Austria is sticking to bank secrecy. We fight tax evasion and money laundering,” she said.

“Great Britain has many money laundering centres and tax havens in its immediate legal remit – the Channel Islands Gibraltar, the Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands. These are all hot spots for tax evasion and money laundering.”

Austria is opposed to German-led demands for the automatic exchange of information on banking depositors with other EU countries, proposals that will be discussed by Europe’s finance ministers.

Earlier this week, Luxembourg caved into German pressure and announced it would to share foreign bank account details with the depositor’s home governments, if EU countries, from 2015.

“Automatic exchange of information involves a massive interference in people’s privacy rights. Here the state sniffs around deep into the private affairs of account holders,” said Mrs Fekter.

The Austrian finance minister has described Britain as “the island of the blessed for tax evasion and money laundering”, comparing British offshore banking to the Cypriot financial sector that is to be forcibly restructured as part of a eurozone bailout.

“Just as we urged the abolition of sealed foundations in the Cyprus rescue to drain the money laundering swamp, we must demand the same of the UK,” she wrote in an article for Kurier, an Austrian newspaper.

“We want a trust registry for the Channel Islands, but also for countries where British law applies, such as the Cayman Islands, the Virgin Islands or Gibraltar. These are all areas that are havens for tax evaders.”

Eurozone finance ministers will also discuss Cyprus as the EU-IMF has frozen its contribution at €10 billion as the costs of its bail-out surged from €17.5bn to €23bn, larger than the size of the country’s economy, further bankrupting the island.

In a bid to stop Cyprus leaving the euro, the EU-IMF has demanded that it hand three quarters of the countryメs gold reserves to pay back loans making it much harder for the island to ditch the single currency to go it alone.

Small Arms Treaty Negotiations July 2-27, 2012 in New York City—Aurora, Colorado Shooting at Major Media Event July 20, 2012?—Suspect Arrested without Resistance—If you REALLY believe this is a coincidence—you are the kind of BRAIN DEAD AMERICAN that Obama LOVES…..

HISTORICAL METAPHORS AND MYTHIC REALITIES—the enactment of truth

Isn’t it just amazing that less the 48 hours after the shooting, the Police in little Aurora, Colorado, already knew that former Medical Student James Holmes (a white-man with a crazy “Andreas Breivik” smile on his photos) bought all his guns legally?  They also knew there was no Islamic terrorism involved, immediately (well, how could there be, Holmes was a white medical student, right?—must be a conservative opposed to Obamacare, that’s obvious….isn’t it?  I’m just making a prediction now…but SO WAS THE OBAMA ADMINSITRATION when it predicted, just last year, right before Andreas Breivik’s attack in Norway, that White Middle Class American Males were going to be the principal terrorists to be profiled, from now on—my, what insight! what perception! what superb planning!) Wow, they weren’t even going to finish the search of his apartment until today, I wonder how they figured it all out so fast?  That’s just amazing police work if you ask me…. BRAVO AURORA, COLORADO!!!!!  Yeah, right….

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/vigil-held-us-massacre-batman-screening-023539143.html

“Police arrested Holmes — who was wearing full body armor and a gas mask, apparently to protect him from effects of his own tear gas — without encountering resistance by his car at the rear of the theater.

Holmes, who reportedly attended the University of Colorado medical school until last month, had no criminal record aside from a citation for speeding in October 2011, according to police.

Witnesses described chaos chillingly similar to that depicted in the Batman films, in which maniacal villains terrorize Gotham City.”

“”In the last 60 days, he purchased four guns at local metro gun shops and through the internet he purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition,” the police chief said.

He added: “My understanding is that all the weapons that he possessed he possessed legally, and all the clips that he possessed, he possessed legally, and all the ammunition he possessed, he possessed legally.””

To Anyone who thinks this wasn’t staged—-I would like to offer you a fabulous investment opportunity, in that it happens that I own all right, title, and interest to the Golden Gate Bridge…. but at the present time the costs of maintaining that wonderful American landmark have become prohibitive….

I have no insights into the mind of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, or Michael Bloomberg, but I am deeply insulted that they think I (and approximately 300,000,000 other Americans, plus the randomly relevant Mexican, Canadian, or European) am stupid enough to fall for this one.

THERE IS A SMALL ARMS TREATY BEING NEGOTIATED AT A CONFERENCE IN NEW YORK CITY RIGHT NOW (“The Arms Trade Treaty is the name of a controversial potential multilateral treaty that would regulate the international trade in conventional weapons. The treaty will be negotiated at a global conference under the auspices of the United Nations from July 2 – 27, 2012 in New York.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty, as of 3:07 PM on Saturday July 21, 2012).  It is widely expected that Barack Hussein Obama will sign this ridiculous piece of international police power over trade into effect on the final day of the conference, July 27, 2012.

Two weeks into this Conference a guy starts a shooting spree in a Cinemark-Century 16 Movie Theatre in Aurora, Colorado 20 miles from the site of Columbine High School in the suburbs of deadly Denver, Colorado (subject of Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” among other things).   He does so at the opening of what was already guaranteed to be a major media event—the opening of Dark Knight Rises—a film which glorifies Superhuman Monarchical Individual Heroism (traditional symbolic metaphor for All-Power, legally immune, Centralized Government)—and then stands at the back door of a theatre waiting to be arrested without resistance?  This is ALMOST as good a joke as the Terrorist Passport that fell from the sky and survived the incineration of Two Jet Aeroplanes and Three Buildings in New York City on 9/11.  The stupidity of the American people, apparently knows no boundaries, as P.T. Barnum so famously said as he built his own private empire (“Nobody ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American people.).

“On Saturday, Obama promised justice to the residents of Aurora, Colorado, saying: “The federal government stands ready to do everything necessary to bring whoever’s responsible for this heinous crime to justice.”

He said the government “will take every step possible” to ensure the safety of all Americans.”

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/vigil-held-us-massacre-batman-screening-023539143.html

Exactly what steps were necessary given that the gunman had already (effectively) turned himself in?  OH, I almost forgot—obviously—OUTLAW ALL GUNS!  How could I omit such an obvious solution????

And did anybody else notice:

Half Mast Flag News

– Fly the American Flag at Half Staff Sunset until July 25, 2012-

A Presidential proclamation has been issued to fly the flag at half staff until July 25, 2012 in Honor of the victims of the Aurora, Colorado shootings.

http://halfstaff.org/

How many brave American soldiers died in around the world, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan without the Flags being  flown at Half Mast?  Were the Flags Flown at Half Mast after Hurricane Katrina?  Flags are only flown at Half-Mast for Politically-Self Serving Purposes—such as making speeches in favor of gun control in the week that separates the Aurora, Colorado Shooting from the end of the Small Arms Conference in New York City.

The senseless taking of life is deplorable—but as between mass murder and lies, I think that the greater crime is mass deception.  It is a shame that Mr. Holmes, apparently a very good medical student, will never be Dr. Holmes—his smile is so reminiscent of Andreas Breivik, and his role as patsy is so willing and compliant, that I think they must have a new “patsy” school somewhere that trains these guys to take the fall and play their parts to maximum possible effect.  Gone are the days when a Jack Ruby will have to step out of his sleazy bar to shoot the future Oswalds to make sure they don’t flap their lips and tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” about staged murder—all the world’s a stage, but the producers and directors are getting good at this after fifty years or more of practice…

It is a shame that so many people who went to a movie that night—as I myself did, far far away from Colorado, I’m happy to say—were shot.

But their families must take comfort—their loved ones deaths were not in vain nor were they senseless.  The triggerman has surrendered, and will either be locked for life inside a certain Maximum Security Mountain Prison in Colorado or else be put to death, but he did not engage on a random shooting rampage. The murders in Aurora were, and I make this prediction with 99% certainty, were planned, like Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and 9/11, in the White House, the White House Situation Room, and the United States Department of State and U.N. Embassy to the United Nations.

WAKE UP AND STAND UP AMERICANS!!!  LET’S START ARRESTING THE REAL CRIMINALS—the ones who stage killings to take away your rights.  Romney and Obama are, of course, of essentially one mind and one position on gun control: fool the people into complacence and then finally disarm them.

Here is the stridently Anti-Constitutional/Anti-Second Amendment Rights Article in Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-suspect-avoided-gun-reporting-requirement-1-.html):

Colorado Shooting Suspect Avoided Gun Reporting Rule

By Michael C. Bender and Jeff Bliss – Jul 20, 2012 7:34 PM PTThe suspect in the Colorado shooting bought two pistols, a semiautomatic rifle and a shotgun since May, avoiding federal reporting requirements and taking advantage of the state’s failure to pass significant firearms legislation since the Columbine massacre 13 years ago.

The suspect, James Holmes, 24, didn’t purchase the handguns from the same store within five days, which would have triggered a requirement for the seller to notify the U.S. Justice Department, according to a federal official who asked for anonymity and wasn’t authorized to speak publicly. Holmes hadn’t committed any offenses that would have raised an alarm during required background checks, the official said.

Colorado Shooting Suspect Avoided U.S. Gun Reporting Requirement

Julie Adams, left, holds her phone displaying a 2006 Westview High School yearbook picture of Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes in front of the Holmes family house in San Diego on July 20, 2012. Photographer: Gregory Bull/AP Photo

Law Enforcement Search Suspected Shooter's Home

0:50

July 20 (Bloomberg) — Police and firefighters in Aurora, Colorado, search the home of the suspect of a shooting of more than 70 people, killing at least 12. James Holmes, 24, was arrested after the 12:30 a.m. attack at a shopping mall that housed the theater in the Denver suburb, Police Chief Dan Oates said at a press briefing today. (Source: Bloomberg)

The shooting early yesterday killed 12 inside an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater. The incident renewed debate over gun laws, with advocates saying the slayings show the need for tighter controls. Lawmakers haven’t clamped down on firearms after earlier shootings gripped public attention, including one in January 2011 that wounded Gabrielle Giffords, then a Democratic U.S. Representative, in Tucson, Arizona.

“You get this fervor in people when something like this happens,” said Ron Teck, a former Republican state senator from Grand Junction, Colorado. He was a lawmaker when the Columbine High School killings took place. “I would be really surprised if anything actually does happen.”

Deadliest Shooting

The deadliest shooting in the U.S. in recent years occurred on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007, when Seung-Hui Cho took 33 lives, including his own. In the 1999 Columbine attack, two students shot 12 classmates and a teacher in the suburban Denver school before killing themselves.

After Columbine, a measure requiring background checks for purchases at gun shows passed the U.S. Senate and stalled in the House of Representatives. No major gun-control laws passed following the Virginia Tech shooting or after Jared Lee Loughner opened fire last year in a Tucson parking lot, killing six and wounding Giffords.

In Colorado, state lawmakers refused to pass new gun- control measures after Columbine. Voters responded by approving a constitutional amendment that required background checks before firearms could be purchased at a gun show.

A bill that would have eliminated Colorado’s background check system, known as InstaCheck, passed the Republican- controlled Colorado House this year and stalled in the Senate, led by Democrats. The measure was backed by the National Rifle Association, which said the check duplicates federal requirements.

Guns Recovered

After the attack in Aurora, authorities seized a Glock G22 and a Glock G23, both .40 caliber pistols, one Remington 870 Express Tactical 12-gauge shotgun and one Smith & Wesson M&P .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle, the federal official said.

Holmes used the shotgun, rifle and one of the Glocks in the shooting, Aurora Police Chief Daniel Oates told reporters.

Two of the guns were purchased at the Denver store of Bass Pro Shops, said Larry Whiteley, manager of communications for the Springfield, Missouri-based company. The store followed federal requirements and background checks were conducted, Whiteley said in a statement.

In Colorado, there are no specific rules that would prohibit those guns from being owned, saidRobert Brown, the agent in charge of background checks at the state Bureau of Investigation.

Waiting Period

Colorado doesn’t require gun registration and there is no specific waiting period to buy a firearm. Instead, purchases are approved as soon as U.S. authorities clear a list of 10 criteria, such as assuring the buyer isn’t a fugitive or an illegal alien, and the state conducts its own checks, including for restraining orders and juvenile arrests.

Residents can carry concealed weapons in Colorado. Sheriffs approve concealed-carry permits if applicants are at least 21, haven’t committed perjury and complete a gun-training course, among other requirements. The state also recognizes concealed- carry permits from 30 other states.

Colorado residents with a permit can’t carry a firearm in schools, some government buildings and on private property where guns are prohibited by the owner, Brown said.

‘Future Tragedies’

Congress should “prevent future tragedies” and pass stricter gun control laws in response to the movie theater shooting, Dan Gross, head of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement. The Washington-based group describes itself as the country’s largest pro-gun-control lobby.

The NRA, a membership organization that says it’s widely recognized as a “major political force” and the country’s “foremost defender” of Second Amendment rights, declined to comment on the gun-control debate.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and the community,” NRA public affairs director Andrew Arulanandam, said by e-mail. “NRA will not have any further comment until all the facts are known.”

The NRA has persuaded state lawmakers to make it easier to buy and carry guns, said Adam Winkler, a University of CaliforniaLos Angeles, law professor who wrote about the subject in his book, “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms.”

Winkler pointed to states such as Arizona and Wyoming that don’t require permits to carry guns. Florida lawmakers in 2008 forced business owners to let employees and shoppers bring firearms on their property and leave the firearms locked in their cars.

Virginia lawmakers this year repealed a cap on buying more than one handgun per month.

“Tragic incidents like this don’t move gun-control laws,” Winkler said in an interview. “No matter how many people die, gun control reforms go nowhere.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Michael C. Bender in Tallahassee at mbender10@bloomberg.net; Jeff Bliss in Washington at jbliss@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net

***********************************************************************

and here is a similar article from UK Yahoo

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/batman-movie-massacre-weapons-bought-legally-031629075.html — the traditional rights of Englishmen have been suppressed for a long time since: “”the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,””  MacDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3036 (2010) SCOTUS, citing D.C. v. Heller.

Batman Movie Massacre: Weapons Bought Legally

Sky NewsSky News – 17 hours ago

The man suspected of shooting 12 people dead and wounding 70 during a screening of the new Batman movie in Colorado legally purchased four guns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition in the last 60 days, police have revealed.

More details about the bloody massacre at a cinema in Aurora, near Denver, – and the extent of the weaponry used – were outlined by officials at a news conference.

The gunman, who burst into a midnight screening of the firm and opened fire, was arrested shortly afterwards and has been identified as 24-year-old James Holmes, a loner who recently quit medical school.

Ten people were killed at the scene with another two dying later of their injuries.

Eleven people are still in a critical condition in hospital while only one of the dead has so far been identified .

Aurora police chief Dan Oates said Holmes had bought the four guns in local shops and the 6,000 rounds of ammunition over the internet.

All the weapons were purchased legally, he added.

Describing the rampage itself, he said: “As far as we know it was a pretty rapid pace of fire in that theatre.”

The gunman was wearing a gas mask and a bulletproof vest as he fired shots and hurled a gas canister at the movie-goers.

Holding back tears, an emotional Mr Oates also described the potential danger of booby traps the police face while trying to search the gunman’s flat.

His apartment is filled with trip wires and chemicals, leading to the evacuation of five buildings nearby.

The operation to search the flat would resume in the morning, Mr Oates said.

The police are also due to meet shortly with the victims’ families.

The news conference came after Christopher Nolan, the director of the new Batman film that was being screened at the time of the massacre, called it a “senseless tragedy”, that was “unbearably savage”.

The Oscar-nominated filmmaker cancelled the French premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises” and a media junket in Paris hours after the shootings.

“Speaking on behalf of the cast and crew… I would like to express our profound sorrow at the senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community,” he said.

British-American Mr Nolan is director of the Batman trilogy that started with “The Dark Knight” in 2008 and of which “The Dark Knight Rises” is the final instalment.

US President Barack Obama said he was saddened by the “horrific and tragic shooting”.

He cut short campaigning for the November presidential elections to return to the White House, where flags were lowered in mourning.

The Queen sent a message of sympathy to Mr Obama.

The British monarch said: “I was saddened to learn of the tragic loss of life earlier today in Denver, Colorado.

“Prince Philip joins me in extending our heartfelt sympathy to you and the people of America at this time.”

But while the shooting side-tracked the US presidential race neither President Obama nor Republican challenger Mitt Romney addressed the volatile issue of gun control in America.

“There are going to be other days for politics,” Obama said from one key electoral state, Florida. From another one, New Hampshire, Romney said much the same.

Amid their calls for unity and prayer, neither Mr Obama nor Mr Romney said anything of gun control, an issue that has been all but absent from the campaign debate this year.

Both men have shifted with the times, moving away from stances that favoured tougher gun control laws.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate, said: “You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it.”

Twenty years ago, polls showed that a substantial majority of Americans – nearly 80% in 1990 – supported stricter limits on guns.

But now Americans appear evenly divided between those who want tougher restrictions and those who want to stick with current laws – which allow easy access to guns in many areas.

**********************************************************************

“We only report the news, we don’t make it up!  That’s the GOVERNMENT’s job” (British Newscaster from 2006 Natalie Portman/Hugo Weaving movie V for Vendetta)

As Obama DOJ/DHS predicted last year—Intelligent White Males are now the “Terrorist Profile” to be targeted—let’s call this “The Andreas Breivik Effect”—or perhaps “The Biological Basis for Psychiatric and Neurological Disorders”—the Stage Managers are really learning how to stage crisis events really well, that’s the key.

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-suspect-brilliant-science-student-230349806.html  As the US DOJ and DHS predicted last year—you’ve got to look out for some of those smart white guys….they are, perhaps, the biggest threat to Obama’s world…

Colorado suspect was brilliant science student

Associated PressBy DAN ELLIOTT and MICHAEL R. BLOOD | Associated Press – 6 hrs ago

  • Myia Young, 4, places a candle by an American flag during a vigil for victims behind a theater where a gunman open fire at moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado July 20, 2012. REUTERS/ Jeremy PapassoView Gallery

    Myia Young, 4, places a candle by an American flag during a vigil for victims behind …

  • This photo provided by the University of Colorado shows James Holmes. University spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery says 24-year-old Holmes, who police say is the suspect in a mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater, was studying neuroscience in a Ph.D. program at the University of Colorado-Denver graduate school. Holmes is suspected of shooting into a crowd at a movie theater killing at least 12 people and injuring dozens more, authorities said. (AP Photo/University of Colorado)

    This photo provided by the University …

DENVER (AP) — James Eagen Holmes came from a well-tended San Diego enclave of two-story homes with red-tiled roofs, where neighbors recall him as a clean-cut, studious young man of sparing words.

Tall and dark-haired, he stared clear-eyed at the camera in a 2004 high school yearbook snapshot, wearing a white junior varsity soccer uniform — No. 16. The son of a nurse, Arlene, and a software company manager, Robert, James Holmes was a brilliant science scholar in college.

The biggest mystery surrounding the 24-year-old doctoral student was why he would have pulled on a gas mask and shot dozens of people early Friday in a suburban Denver movie theater, as police allege.

In the age of widespread social media, no trace of Holmes could be found on Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Twitter or anywhere on the Web. Either he never engaged or he scrubbed his trail.

A longtime neighbor in San Diego, where Holmes grew up, remembers only a “shy guy … a loner” from a churchgoing family. In addition to playing soccer at Westview High School, he ran cross country.

The bookish demeanor concealed an unspooling life. Holmes struggled to find work after graduating with highest honors in spring 2010 with a neuroscience degree from the University of California, Riverside, said the neighbor, retired electrical engineer Tom Mai.

Holmes enrolled last year in a neuroscience Ph.D. program at the University of Colorado-Denver but was in the process of withdrawing, said school officials, who didn’t provide a reason. The school later said in a statement that he left the program in June 2012.

As part of the advanced program in Denver, a James Holmes had been listed as making a presentation in May about Micro DNA Biomarkers in a class named “Biological Basis of Psychiatric and Neurological Disorders.”

In academic achievement, “he was at the top of the top,” recalled Riverside Chancellor Timothy P. White.

Holmes concentrated his study on “how we all behave,” White added. “It’s ironic and sad.”

From a distance, Holmes’ life appears unblemished, a young man with unlimited potential. There are no indications he had problems with police.

Somehow, the acclaimed student and quiet neighbor reached a point where he painted his hair red, called himself “The Joker,” the green-haired villain from the Batman movies, according to New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, who said he had been briefed on the matter.

Authorities say Holmes arrived at the theater dressed in black, outfitted in a gas mask, ballistic helmet, vest and leggings, black tactical gloves and protectors on his throat and groin. He was armed with an assault-style rifle, a shotgun and Glock handgun.

Police said he started his attack by tossing two gas canisters into the theater, where he had bought a ticket for the midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises,” the new Batman movie.

A federal law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing probe into the rampage, said Holmes bought four guns from retailers in the past two months.

Holmes bought his first Glock pistol in Aurora, Colo., on May 22. Six days later, he picked up a Remington shotgun in Denver. About two weeks later, he bought a .223 caliber Smith & Wesson rifle in Thornton, Colo., and then a second Glock in Denver on July 6 — 13 days before the shooting, the official said.

A high-volume drum magazine was attached to the rifle, an assault weapon, the official said. Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said that a 100-round drum magazine for the rifle was recovered from the scene.

“I’m told by experts that with that drum magazine, he could have gotten off 50 to 60 rounds, even if it was semiautomatic, within one minute,” Oates said at a news conference. “And as far as we know, it was a pretty rapid pace of fire in that theater.”

Julie Adams, whose son played junior varsity soccer with Holmes, said her son remembered little about the suspect, which was unusual for the tight-knit team.

“I don’t think many of the kids (teammates) knew him. He was kind of a loner,” she said.

Jackie Mitchell, a furniture mover who lives several blocks from the suspect’s apartment building in Colorado, said he had drinks with Holmes at a bar on Tuesday night, though he showed no sign of distress or violence.

After Holmes approached him, “we just talked about football. He had a backpack and geeky glasses and seemed like a real intelligent guy, and I figured he was one of the college students,” Mitchell said.

When Mitchell saw Holmes’ photo after the shooting, “the hair stood up on my back,” he said. “I know this guy.”

Holmes is not talking to police and has asked for a lawyer, according to a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the case. Police found jars of chemicals in Holmes’ booby-trapped apartment with wires nearby, the law enforcement official said.

When he surrendered meekly in the movie house parking lot, Holmes told authorities what he’d done at his residence in the Denver suburb of Aurora, the third most populous city in Colorado.

“Our hearts go out to those who were involved in this tragedy and to the families and friends of those involved,” Holmes’ family said in a statement Friday. “We ask that the media respect our privacy during this difficult time.”

San Diego Superior Court spokeswoman Karen Dalton said there were no records found under his name, not even for a traffic ticket. Riverside County prosecutors also have no criminal record for him, said John Hall, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office. The only mark on his record in Aurora was a speeding summons from October, Oates said.

On Friday morning, police escorted the suspect’s father from the family’s San Diego home. The mother stayed inside, receiving visitors who came to offer support.

San Diego police spokeswoman Lt. Andra Brown spoke to reporters in the driveway of the Holmes’ home, on behalf of the family.

“As you can understand, the Holmes family is very upset about all of this,” she said. “It’s a tragic event and it’s taken everyone by surprise.”

___

Blood reported from Los Angeles. Associated Press contributors to this report include Elliot Spagat and Julie Watson in San Diego; Eileen Sullivan, Alicia A. Caldwell and Pete Yost in Washington; Tom Hays in New York; Amy Taxin in Orange County, Calif.; Colleen Slevin in Denver; and Eric Carvin and AP researcher Judith Ausuebel in New York.

Even Forbes doesn’t dare call Obama a Stalinist Communist—but Peter Ferrara comes admirably close in this 06-14-2012 article about Obama’s career of “CALCULATED DECEPTION”—after all, Obama IS a Stalinist Communist, an heir to the Mau Mau, and the greatest disgrace our Country has ever known (even acknowledging—it’s a tough competition)

Peter FerraraPeter Ferrara, ContributorPresident Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History – ForbesI cover public policy, particularly concerning economics.

OP/ED6/14/2012 @ 3:42PM |407,582 views

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality. But that is the reality of President Obama today.

Waving a planted press commentary, Obama recently claimed on the campaign stump, “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.”

Peggy Noonan aptly summarized in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal the take away by the still holding majority of Americans living in the real world:

“There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration.  It became apparent some weeks ago when the President talked on the stump – where else? – about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth [under Obama] is actually lower than that of previous Presidents.  This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama’s Presidency.  People sneered: The President was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture!  But you know, why would he go out there waiving an article that could immediately be debunked?  Maybe because he thought it was true.  That’s more alarming, isn’t it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.”

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the general public regarding the President’s rhetorical strategy that I’ve have been calling Calculated Deception.  The latter is deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture.  That has been a central Obama practice not only throughout his entire presidency, but also as the foundation of his 2008 campaign strategy, and actually throughout his whole career.

Rest assured, Ms. Noonan, that the President is not as nuts as he may seem at times.  He knows very well that he is not a careful spender.  His whole mission is to transform the U.S. not into a Big Government country, but a Huge Government country, because only a country run by a Huge Government can be satisfactorily controlled by superior, all wise and beneficent individuals like himself.  That is why he is at minimum a Swedish socialist, if not worse.  Notice, though, how far behind the times he and his weak minded supporters are, as even the Swedes have abandoned Swedish socialism as a failure.

The analysis by Internet commentator Rex Nutting on which Obama based his claim begins by telling us “What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress.”  Not exactly.

The previous administration, or President, proposes a budget.  The previous Congress approves a budget.  And what Congress approves can be radically different from what the President proposes.

As Art Laffer and Steve Moore showed in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, President Bush began a spending spree in his term that erased most of the gains in reduced government spending as a percent of GDP achieved by the Republican Congress in the 1990s led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in conjunction with President Clinton.  But for fiscal year 2009, President Bush in February, 2008 proposed a budget with just a 3% spending increase over the prior year.  Fiscal year 2009 ran from October 1, 2008 until September 30, 2009.  President Obama’s term began on January 20, 2009.

Recall, however, that in 2008 Congress was controlled by Democrat majorities, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and the restless Senator Obama already running for President, just four years removed from his glorious career as a state Senator in the Illinois legislature.  As Hans Bader reported on May 26 for the Washington Examiner, the budget approved and implemented by Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the Congressional Democrat majorities provided for a 17.9 percent increase in spending for fiscal 2009!

Actually, President Obama and the Democrats were even more deeply involved in the fiscal 2009 spending explosion than that.  As Bader also reports, “The Democrat Congress [in 2008], confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009’s 12 appropriations bills (Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and HomelandSecurity).  The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them [in 2009], and [President] Obama signed them.”  So Obama played a very direct role in the runaway fiscal 2009 spending explosion.

Note as well that President Reagan didn’t just go along with the wild spending binge of the previous Democratic Congress for fiscal year 1981 when he came into office on January 20 of that year.  Almost no one remembers now the much vilified at the time 1981 Reagan budget cuts, his first major legislative initiative. Then Democrat Rep. Phil Gramm joined with Ohio Republican Del Latta to push through the Democratic House $31 billion in Reagan proposed budget cuts to the fiscal year 1981 budget, which totaled $681 billion, resulting in a cut of nearly 5% in that budget.  Obama could have done the exact same thing when he entered office in January, 2009, even more so with the Congress totally controlled by his own party at the time.

Reagan then ramped up the spending cuts from there.  In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982.  But roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement.  In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.  Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms!  By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars.

Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989.  That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%, a huge achievement.

In sharp contrast to Reagan, Obama’s first major legislative initiative was the so-called stimulus, which increased future federal spending by nearly a trillion dollars, the most expensive legislation in history up till that point.  We know now, as thinking people knew at the time, that this record shattering spending bill only stimulated government spending, deficits and debt.  Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don’t promote economic recovery, growth and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.

But this was just a warm up for Obama’s Swedish socialism.  Obama worked with Pelosi’s Democratic Congress to pass an additional, $410 billion, supplemental spending bill for fiscal year 2009, which was too much even for big spending President Bush, who had specifically rejected it in 2008.  Next in 2009 came a $40 billion expansion in the SCHIP entitlement program, as if we didn’t already have way more than too much entitlement spending.

But those were just the preliminaries for the biggest single spending bill in world history, Obamacare, enacted in March, 2010.  That legislation is not yet even counted in Obama’s spending record so far because it mostly does not go into effect until 2014.  But it is now scored by CBO as increasing federal spending by $1.6 trillion in the first 10 years alone, with trillions more to come in future years.

After just one year of the Obama spending binge, federal spending had already rocketed to 25.2% of GDP, the highest in American history except for World War II.  That compares to 20.8% in 2008, and an average of 19.6% during Bush’s two terms.  The average during President Clinton’s two terms was 19.8%, and during the 60-plus years from World War II until 2008 — 19.7%.  Obama’s own fiscal 2013 budget released in February projects the average during the entire 4 years of the Obama Administration to come in at 24.4% in just a few months.  That budget shows federal spending increasing from $2.983 trillion in 2008 to an all time record $3.796 trillion in 2012, an increase of 27.3%.

Moreover, before Obama there had never been a deficit anywhere near $1 trillion.  The highest previously was $458 billion, or less than half a trillion, in 2008. The federal deficit for the last budget adopted by a Republican controlled Congress was $161 billion for fiscal year 2007.  But the budget deficits for Obama’s four years were reported in Obama’s own 2013 budget as $1.413 trillion for 2009, $1.293 trillion for 2010, $1.3 trillion for 2011, and $1.327 trillion for 2012, four years in a row of deficits of $1.3 trillion or more, the highest in world history.

President Obama’s own 2013 budget shows that as a result federal debt held by the public will double during Obama’s four years as President.  That means in just one term President Obama will have increased the national debt as much as all prior Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, combined.

But this 2012 election is defined for the voters by the future, not the past.  And that future is fully revealed by the stark contrast between President Obama’s spending, deficits and debt projected under his proposed 2013 budget, and the projections under House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget, adopted by the Republican House, and endorsed by presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Despite all the controversy in Washington and in the media over Ryan’s budget, what it all adds up to is just to restore federal spending to its long term, postwar, historical average of 20% of GDP.  That stable level of federal spending, with some modest variance, prevailed for over 60 years after the end of World War II, until 2009.  Ryan’s budget reduces federal spending from an average of 24.4% of GDP during the Obama years to 20.1% after just 3 years, by 2015.

By contrast, under the budget policies supported by President Obama and Congressional Democrats, federal spending soars to 30% of GDP by 2027, 40% by 2040, 50% by 2060, and 80% by 2080.  Obama’s 2013 budget proposes to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years, the most in world history by far, increasing federal spending by $1.5 trillion above the current CBO baseline.  Ryan’s budget proposes to cut that by $6.8 trillion.  By 2022, Ryan’s budget would be spending nearly a trillion dollars less per year than President Obama’s budget.

Ryan proposes tax reform to consolidate the current 6 individual income tax rates, ranging up to 35%, to just two rates of 10% and 25%.  His budget would otherwise retain the Bush tax rates of 15% for capital gains and 15% for corporate dividends, and repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.  Ryan also proposes corporate tax reform, closing loopholes and reducing the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, which is roughly the international average.  CBO scores these reforms, even with the rate cuts, as again restoring federal revenues to their long term, postwar, historical average of 18.3% of GDP by 2015.

Obama’s budget, in sharp contrast, proposes to increase federal taxes by nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years above the CBO baseline.  The budget projects that under Obama’s tax policies federal income tax revenues will double by 2020, federal corporate tax revenues will double by 2017, and federal payroll taxes will double by 2022.

Next year, under President Obama’s policies, the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax are already scheduled to increase under current law.  That is because the Obamacare tax increases are scheduled to go into effect, and the Bush tax cuts expire, which President Obama proposes refuses to renew for singles making over $200,000 a year, and couples making over $250,000.  President Obama is now proposing on top of that the Buffett Rule, which would increase tax rates on capital gains and dividends even further.  Counting that, next year the top tax rate for capital gains would increase by 100%, the top tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by 100%, the top two income tax rates would increase by nearly 20%, and the Medicare payroll tax again for singles making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000 would increase by 62% (under Obamacare).

This is all on top of the corporate income tax rate, which counting state corporate rates is nearly 40%, the highest in the world now, except for the socialist one party state of Cameroon.  Under the Buffett Rule, America’s capital gains tax rate would be the fourth highest in the industrialized world.  Based on historical precedent, these tax rate increases are unlikely to raise anywhere near the revenue projected by CBO, meaning even higher future deficits and debt.

Under Ryan’s budget, even with CBO’s static scoring, the federal deficit in actual nominal dollars would be reduced to $182 billion by 2017, the fifth year of the budget.  That compares to $1,327 billion, or $1.327 trillion, today.  So in just 5 years, the deficit would be reduced by at least 86%.  The deficit under Ryan’s budget would be less than 1% of GDP by 2017, at 0.9%, where it stabilizes for 6 years to the end of the 10 year budget window.  Most importantly, given the sharp tax rate cuts in Ryan’s budget, with dynamic scoring the budget would probably be balanced by 2017.  That is because in the real world the rate cuts will not lose nearly as much revenue as CBO scores.

Under President Obama’s budget, his own projections show the deficit never gets anywhere near balance.  Indeed, the deficit never gets below or anywhere near the former all time record in 2008.  By 2022, his own budget projects the deficit rising over the previous 5 years to $704 billion.  But if Obama’s comprehensive tax rate increases throw the country back into recession next year, the deficits will soar much higher for several years, to new all time records.

Even under CBO’s horse and buggy static scoring, Ryan’s budget does serve to get federal debt under control and avoid any debt crisis, putting federal debt held by the public on a declining path from 77% of GDP in 2013 to 62% by 2022.  That debt continues on a sharp decline from there, as the long term effects of Ryan’s structural entitlement reforms phase in.  Debt held by the public is reduced to 53% of GDP by 2030, 38% by 2040, and 10% by 2050.  That means the national debt is all but paid off by 2050, and would be soon thereafter.  In fact, under dynamic scoring it probably would be paid off by then.

In stark contrast, on our current course, under President Obama’s budget policies, federal debt held by the public rockets to 140% of GDP by 2030, 220%by 2040, and 320% by 2050, on its way to over 700% by 2080.  That would undoubtedly create a Grecian style sovereign debt crisis for America before that point.

So which course will you choose America?

A New Red Dawn Over America—Obamacare & the Police Power in Arizona are Upheld—the Constitution again ruled DOA at the Supreme Court (full text of the Supreme Court’s Worst Two Decisions of the Week attached)

Chief Justice John Roberts is rapidly becoming my least favorite U.S. Supreme Court Justice in history.  First, in 2007, the debut innovation of “the Roberts Court” was Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, then a followup kick in the face of freedom under the name of Ashcroft v. Iqbal and now this week (on Monday, June 25, 2012) Arizona v. United States (Arizona v US) and, today Thursday, June 28, 2012, yet another day that will live in infamy: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. KAREN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES (NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al v SEBELIUS SECRETARY OF HEALTH).

It’s been a really bad week for the Constitution and for the American people, and a very good day for  Obama’s flourishing Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  Oh yes, and what a nice present for Hillary Clinton as she celebrates lasting longer as U.S. Secretary of State than any other of the 96 individuals to hold that office—and we were all sure she was just a joke back in the early 1990s when she was pushing a National Health Care System which looked an awful lot like what we’ve got now with Obamacare.

First with regard to Arizona v. US: The expansion of the American Police State seems never-ending, as the late great Strom Thurmond’s States-Rights Democratic Party Platform very accurately predicted in 1948.   The great triumph of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States over the past 64 years is quite simply this: all oppressive acts of government, so long as they are applied equally to White people as well as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and all others without Racial, and only with Economic and Political, Prejudice, will be upheld.  But try asserting any constitutional right other than your right to be on an equal footing with all other slaves, and man YOU ARE DEAD MEAT!!!!  States Rights got a minor boost last year when an individual right to sue under the Tenth Amendment was recognized, but this year the 162 year trend towards the complete suppression of State Sovereignty marches forward unabated….

The main issue regarding Arizona’s immigration statutes was whether the individual states of the Union have any right to make more restrictive laws regarding residence and citizenship than the United States as a whole.  Under the expressly anti-States’ Rights 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court said NO.  But, if the Arizona police want to go around harassing people on the highways, they are free to do so, so long as they are willing to say they suspect that every blonde-haired & blue-eyed caucasian must have recently entered illegally from Sweden or Norway perhaps….  The Supreme Court, these days, never seems to miss an opportunity to enhance the power of the police to oppress the population at large.

With regard to the “Obamacare” case, I can only say I’m NOT even as surprised by this result as I was not by the result in the Arizona immigration opinion.  Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt gave up his plan to “pack” the Supreme Court, there is no infringement on the economic liberty and personal choices of the American people which the Supreme Court finds too trivial to be worthy of Federal Enforcement.  The only comment-worthy deviation from predictions was that Chief Justice John Roberts in this case came up with the novel notion that the U.S. government can tax anything and anyone it wants to for any reason, including non-compliance with a mandatory insurance purchase requirement, and that this punitive tax or purchase choice makes it all “OK.”

Of all the commentary and punditry that came out on Thursday after the decision, two of the most “spot on” that I saw were first) the article describing John Roberts’ “Liberal Apotheosis”:

After Thursday’s Obamacare ruling, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts became a minor deity to some liberals for voting to save Obamacare. But just days before Roberts’ apotheosis, liberals lamented that the “conservative” Supreme Court was taking America down a dangerous path.  (http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-ruling-liberal-apotheosis-john-roberts-035207618.html)

The “Liberal Apotheosis” of John Roberts?  “Apotheosis” of course, means transformation into a god—and what did the pagan gods of Olympia or Pharaonic Egypt do?  Exactly what any god can do:  A “god” can work Miracles,  first Make and then Bend the all Rules, Change the Natural Order of Things….   I suppose my own religious notions, such as they are, posit an unchanging God defined by the phrase from the old BCP: “as it was in the beginning, it is now and ever shall be, world without end amen” which seems curiously absent from most Episcopal services these days.   I equate God with Nature, and while I believe rather fervently in Evolution, I believe Evolution operates according to certain utterly unchanging rules, such as the laws of thermodynamics, which even the discovery of man’s ability intentionally to split or fuse atoms could never quite change.

And yet the Godlike role of the Supreme Court in making and bending rules seems more than a bit undemocratic.   So that is the second part of the analysis we need to perform today: Was Roberts’ decision to side with Obamacare entirely a matter of political strategy?

 The American Concept of Constitutional Judicial Review predates Chief Justice John Marshall. The Supreme Court’s decision Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 412 (February 1, 1793)(Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, February 1 1793triggered the (I would now say very unfortunate) move to enact the 11th Amendment during the First Term of the Presidency of George Washington.  But Chief Justice Marshall’s notions of judicial review shaped the Court, much to his cousin Thomas Jefferson’s dismay and disgust.   I recall hearing the story of Marbury v. Madison and judicial review in my Freshman year at Tulane, from Professor Jean Danielson in Political Science H103, where I met my long-time college years best friend John K. Naland, now a long-time veteran of the U.S. State Department.  Professor Danielson explained the political genius of Marbury v. Madison was that it empowered the Court while respecting the political boundaries of the time.  Chief Justice Marshall knew that, as President Adams’ last major appointee, any decision made in favor of the appointment of Adams’ minor “midnight judges” including William Marbury would simply be ignored by the new Democratic-Republican administration of Jefferson (with James Madison as secretary of state and the defendant in the case) as an act of political partisanship on the part of a Federalist appointee favoring Federalist appointees.  On the other hand, to uphold Secretary of State Madison’s power to refuse to honor the appointments made by President Adams would seem like craven capitulation without legal or moral integrity.  So, in a result which no one ever anticipated, Chief Justice John Marshall carefully reasoned and soundly declared the statute authorizing the appointment of Magistrates in the District of Columbia to be an unconstitutional act in excess of Congress’ power under the Constitution—and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court as Constitutional arbiter of the United States was established forever—or, at least, for a long time.

That particular “long time” ended in 1936, which, as a another commentator/pundit on the Obamacare decision pointed out, was the last time in history that the United States Supreme Court overturned a major piece of Congressional legislation as Unconstitutional.    Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first term as President was unlike anything the United States had ever since, including George Washington’s First Term.   In Washington’s First Term, the constant debate in Congress was whether the Federal Government had power under the Constitution to do much of anything at all.  The spirit was decidedly “conservative” in the sense of cautious, even as a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal was being launched as a more formally organized “corporate” type of enterprise (the Articles of Confederation were much more analogous to a “partnership” among the States—with each partner having a nearly full veto power).

During FDR’s First Term, there were also many in Congress who asked whether the Federal Government had the power to do a great many of the things the New Deal proposed to do, from the NRA to the TVA (National Recovery Administration to the Tennessee Valley Authority).  But from 1933-1937, such questions were not asked in a cautious or even skeptical voice regarding what Congress and the Federal government could legitimately do, but in the desperate and panicked voice of people who saw and feared “you are taking our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor” from us.  Those people sought recourse against the reckless usurpation of Federal Power in the Supreme Court, and in the years 1933-1937, the Supreme Court struck down 29 Congressionally passed statutes signed by the President as part of the New Deal.

Roosevelt’s first hundred days and all that followed provoked an unprecedented clash between the Supreme Court Justices and the “New Deal” alliance of the legislative and executive branches. At Roosevelt’s instigation, Congress in the 1930s enacted a series of laws ostensibly, supposed, aimed at ending the Great Depression and restoring the nation’s economic well-being, but in fact aimed at shoring up the American Elite, especially the Banking system, from the threat of a Communist and/or Fascist revolution analogous to those taking place in Europe at the same time.  Of eight major “program” statutes to come before the Court, only two were upheld. Laws that were struck down included the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, and the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935.  The Court came under heavy fire for its decisions, and Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to increase the size of the Court, presumably to ensure a majority sympathetic to the New Deal.

Shortly after the plan was proposed, the Court defused the issue by upholding a series of revised New Deal laws.  Dominated by economic conservatives, to which group even late 19th/early 20th Century “Progressives” such as Oliver Wendell Holmes were (by comparison, anyhow) the Court threw out numerous laws Congress enacted to protect workers and consumers. The conflicts peaked in 1936. The Court threw out twenty-nine laws during that period, but the last of these was in 1936, when when the court invalidated a federal law that limited work hours and prescribed minimum wages for coal workers.

Everything changed in 1937 when, FDR Proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 on March 9 of that year in one of his legendary “Fireside chats” whereby he jumped over the Congress and all Constitutional Separation of Powers and asked the American people directly to endorse and support his programs.  The public reaction was overwhelmingly negative, almost the first time the 33rd President had seen any of his initiatives draw such opposition.  But the Justices of the Supreme Court saw the writing on the wall—mene, mene, tekel upharsin—and when faced with the two major cases challenging Social Security (the ultimate authority and most direct antecedent for Obamacare), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the most massive fraud ever perpetrated on the American people—the law creating a “Social Security Trust Fund” with the bribed cooperation of the States—into which Social Security Trust Fund not one dime of real money (certainly not one dime of the 14 Trillion dollars paid since 1937 in Social Security Taxes) has ever been paid.

Helvering v. Davis (05-27-1937 Helvering v Davis 301 US 619 57 SCt 904 Jusice Cardozo endorses the SS Trust Fund Fraud) and Steward Machine Company v. Davis (Charles C Steward Mach Co v Davis) thus effectively marked the end of the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government.  The new mantra was not “that government is best which governs least” but instead, “The concept of the general welfare is not a static one”…. “Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.”   (Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 641, 57 S.Ct. 904, 909, 81 L.Ed. 1307, 1315 [1937])

From that time forward Courts held that there appeared to be only four (all extra-constitutional) prerequisites to a finding that a spending clause measure and condition attached to it are valid: (1) The federal power is used for a legitimate national purpose, i.e., promotion of the general welfare (Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 at pp. 585–590, 57 S.Ct. at pp. 890–92 [1937], 81 L.Ed. at pp. 1290–1293); (2) the condition is related to a legitimate national goal (Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra, at pp. 590–591, 57 S.Ct. at pp. 892–93, 81 L.Ed. at pp. 1292–1293; See also Note, Federal Grants and the Tenth Amendment: ‘Things As They Are’ and Fiscal Federalism (1981) 50 Fordham L.Rev. 130, 140–141); (3) the condition is related to the purpose of the federal funds whose receipt is conditioned (FCC v. League of Women Voters (1984) 468 U.S. 364, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 3132, 82 L.Ed.2d 278, 309 (Rehnquist, J. dissenting); State of Okl. v. Schweiker, 655 F.2d at pp. 407, 411); and (4) the condition is unambiguous (Pennhurst State School v. Halderman,  451 U.S. at p. 17, 101 S.Ct. at pp. 1539–40 [January 23, 1984])(Pennhurst State School And Hosp v Halderman).
It was in the spirit of such a “living constitution” that Chief Justice John Roberts allied himself with the enemies of limited government on June 28, 2012.  And it is in that sense, much like the Supreme Court in 1937, ruling in Roosevelt’s favor in both of the Social Security Cases, Helvering and Charles Steward above, that Chief Justice John Roberts “saved the Supreme Court” (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/did-chief-justice-roberts-save-supreme-court-103301790.html).  More likely, Chief Justice John Roberts just danced on Chief Justice John Marshall’s grave and said, “You think that failure to follow the Constitution is Judicial Treason?  Well, let’s see what you’re going to do about it now.”  According to that same article, Chief Justice Roberts had told the Senate at his confirmation hearings:
“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them,” said Roberts at the time. “The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

Now, strangely enough, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a very different kind of opinion in 1820:

The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty.  Cohens v State of Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257, 6 Wheaton 264 (March 3, 1820)

There is a great deal of confusion among the commentators and pundits, I think, about what “Judicial activism” really means.  I would NOT call Chief Justice John Marshall a Judicial Activist—although, indeed, he advocated throughout his 35 years on the bench a considerably more positive role for the Court in preserving the Constitution than Chief Justice John Roberts has shown to date.  “Judicial Activism” does not mean “striking down unconstitutional laws”—“Judicial Activism” as a term should be reserved for reshaping or restructuring the laws in the absence of Congressional Authority to do so.  The “Warren Court” from 1953-1971 was the epitome of “judicial activism”—the Supreme Court during those two decades effectively rewrote the laws of the United States and told CONGRESS and the STATES what to do, rather than vice-versa.

In the case of Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts acts his role as an umpire very poorly.  He has seen the foul, called it (under the commerce clause) and “covered it up” under the guise of the taxing power, which (in reality) is even less constitutionally justified than the commerce clause rationale (which at least has the past 75 years of tradition—however illegitimate, behind it).

And so was the U.S. Constitution rewritten in 1937 to allow for first the “relatively” modest program of Social Security and now, 75 years later—on the occasion of the 75th Annual Hunger Games (cf. Suzanne Collins, Catching Fire [2009] and Mockingjay [2010], both New York: Scholastic Press)—Obamacare comes forward to cap the fraud by, in Chief Justice John Roberts’ view—a non-coercive, mere “Tax” on those who do not buy governmentally mandated insurance… and of course, jail for those who do not pay their taxes.

SO WHAT IS THE SHORT-TERM SOLUTION?  NULLIFY OBAMACARE!  I should say that, without any hesitation whatsoever, I absolutely endorse and support the Tenth Amendment Center’s position on Obamacare (this Los Angeles based think tank is just one of the brightest stars on the Political Horizon—of our New Red Dawn):

Now that the Supremes have crushed Constitutional limits once again, the next step is to focus all our energy on a state and local level to NULLIFY this – and every other – unconstitutional act.
We have model legislation for yor state.  Ready to go right now.  Press your state reps to introduce this bill today, or for the next legislative session.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/federal-health-care-nullification-act/
Please SHARE this information widely!
*******
We need your help to continue this work, and help people take the next step at the state level.  Please join us, and help nullification happen!  Whether it’s $500 or $5, every bit of help right now is crucial!
Please visit this link to help now:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate/
*******
Thomas Jefferson told us that when the government “assumes undelegated powers” a nullification is THE “rightful remedy”
James Madison said that states were “duty bound to interpose….to arrest the progress of evil”
Today’s ruling is an assumption of undelegated powers, and evil is advancing.  The time to act in support of nullification in your area is NOW!  Please share the model legislation for Obamacare with as many people as possible, and please chip in as generously as possible to help us push this campaign aggressively.
While the task is difficult, our cause is just.
Concordia res parvae crescunt,
(small thing grow great by concord)
Michael Bolding
Tenth Amendment Center
==================================================
Our mailing address is:
Tenth Amendment Center
123 S. Figueroa St
Suite 1614
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Our telephone:
213.935.0553

AND WHAT DO I DO AS I WATCH ALL THIS TRANSPIRE?

I sigh.  I cry.  And sometimes I just want to lie down and die.  This is not the land of my birth, even though on the map it generally looks like it should be the same country as it was in 1960.

The transformation over the past fifty two years is simply horrific.  52 years was a key cycle of time among the Aztec, Maya, Mixtec, Tarascans & Zapotec in ancient Mesoamerica, and I can only say that I feel a certain sympathy for how an Aztec born in 1518 might have felt looking at the wreckage of his once proud nation in 1570 after 52 years of Spanish conquest, rape and pillage.  Like an Aztec born in the last year before the arrival of the Spanish, I have grown up and come to age watching my own people (the American Middle Class, especially Protestants of European descent) reduced to second class status, my people’s most attractive and beautiful women taken as prizes by the conquerors, my nation’s heritage and values denigrated, suppressed and taught in the schools as nothing but “heresy” from the New World Order.

I do speak Spanish fairly well and have spent many of the happier moments in my life in Mexico and elsewhere in the Hispanic World, from Bogotá to Barcelona, and I keep in touch with many friends and acquaintances of a Constitutional mindset from those parts of the world.  When they ask me what I consider to be the greatest single constitutional development under the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, I tell them without hesitation: N.A.D.A.  (aka Senate Bill 1867, you know, the statute that effectively repealed the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments that passed the Senate 93-7 last December).

Give me Liberty or Give me Death—March 23, 1775 to March 23, 2010—the more things change, the more things stay the same…..

(my thanks and appreciation to Kaatcya for reminding me that today was the day)

I encourage everyone to read the immortal words of one of America’s patriotic greats during the founding of the union of these United States of America and make that determination to come true.  I would urge everyone to read these words day in and day out as our country is being taken over by the left.  On the same day Obamacare is signed into law by a likely illegally sitting president, 14 states have filed suit against this nation killing legislation, including one with a Democratic Party attorney general (Louisiana).  Of course, in the days of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, Al Smith, and even later (Strom Thurmond in 1948-64, Theodore Bilbo, George Wallace, John Stennis, Sam Ervin, and Robert Byrd, the Democratic party stood above all for limited government, State’s Rights, but all that was, as they say, a long long time ago, in a galaxy far away…when I was young(er).  More states may come and probably will and they will be increasingly bipartisan.  The shots have been fired and the alarms sounded.  Of course, Obamacare does not differ in any significant way from the program Hillary Clinton proposed and pushed for in 1993-1995, and there is no doubt that Obamacare is not significantly MORE repugnant to the Constitution than Social Security, the IRS, the Federal Reserve Bank, or fully 98.9% of the entire United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations Currently in effect.

235 years ago on this date, Patrick Henry spoke the following life-and-world-changing historic words at the Anglican (Established Colonial Church of England, now Episcopal) Church of St. John in Richmond, VA (ironically enough, the same city where the first suit against Obamacare was filed today). And though the events and individuals are different, the bondage and effects are just the same, if not much worse, today.

    No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

    Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

    I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

    They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable-and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

    It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

I testify to everyone receiving this e-mail that I will refuse under compulsion to buy any insurance plan I am forced to purchase and that I will refuse to pay any penalties for failure to comply with however Obamacare is defined.  I will go to prison before I pay any penalty and even then I will not pay.  I will doubly make that commitment since I have no firm proof that the putative president that signed this law was qualified to do so as a natural born U.S. citizen under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, not to mention that this law violates the 10th & 14th Amendments of our Constitution.

March 23rd, 1775 & March 23rd, 2010 were days of infamy in America.  We must march to overturn the tyranny being imposed upon us Americans, even if it costs us our lives – and who knows, it way well do so.

I make this additional commitment to you, my brothers and sisters, as our Founding Fathers did in preparation of the signing of the Declaration of Independence:

  • And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.